W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Species Validation and at Risk Feature

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:08:48 +0100
Message-ID: <3F740220.6010902@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:

> As reported in a previous email, the MINDSWAP group has implemented a 
> complete species validator that passes all tests.  However, we were not 
> able to work out the details of the so-called "B1,B2" feature just from 
> the WG documents (and the we here includes me, Bijan and a programmer) 
> -- however, Sean B's document [1] gave us the missing information we 
> needed.  I would therefore like to suggest that we find a way to include 
> some or all of Sean's in our recommendation track documents somewhere 
> or, if we decide we want to include something like this whole document, 
> consider making it available and citable in our documents.
>  One possibility is that if Sean is willing to "finish" this, we could 
> release it as a Working Group Note (like we did with the XML syntax) -- 
> I think this would be a very valuable document and would make me a lot 
> more sanguine if we go to PR without dropping the structure sharing 
> stuff (to put it another way - with Sean's document available, I find 
> B1/B2 to be implementable - without it, I question whether we actually 
> provide enough information for non-WG members to implement it)

Jim

This depends partly on what you consider "finished" to mean. I produced 
the document in question partly to assist me in the process of building 
the parser/validator and partly in response to a request from the WG. In 
terms of a *rough* description of how one might build a 
parser/validator, I'd consider it pretty much finished.

However, there are a number of quite crucial aspects that it doesn't 
address -- for example how one handles anonymous individuals and 
individual facts concerning them. Producing a document that really 
covers this in detail (and making sure it was right) would be probably 
just as much work again.

My initial inclination is not to pursue this right now -- in some ways 
building the RDF parser was for me a "necessary evil" :-) which then 
allowed me to do some other stuff, rather than it being a core activity. 
  However, if it's considered to be *really* important, then I might be 
persuaded. Of course if the current document is considered sufficient, 
then I'm more than happy to do some simple tidying up and for it to be 
included in other stuff/published as working note/nailed to the door of 
the kirk etc...

Incidentally, the thanks here are really to Peter, as it was a 
discussion with him at the DL workshop that crystallised ideas in my 
mind for tackling the bnode stuff. I have also made a number of minor 
updates to the document to reflect some additional comments Peter made.

	Sean

> [1] http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/owl/parsing.shtml#structureSharing
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Professor James Hendler                           hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies         301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.      301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742      *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***


-- 
Sean Bechhofer
seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 05:10:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT